Thursday, September 22, 2005
It All Depends on What You Mean by “Substantiated” (Updated)
Salon’s “War Room” is playing a nasty little game: giving out unsubstantiated information from The National Enquirer (fergodsake) and slyly noting that it isn’t particularly reliable. But here’s how it reads in my aggregator:
Like I said, sly.
But the only named source is the author of Bush on the Couch, Justin Frank, and Frank admits that he doesn’t actually know anything. He just “thinks” that Bush has been reaching for the bottle. Aside from that little bit of presumption, The Enquirer just teases and toys with unnamed sources and assertions.
In his rush to find a brand new way to smear Bush, Tim Grieve, “War Room” writer, is willing to use The National Enquirer as a somewhat reputable source of information.
All I can say is that any journalist’s reputation is only as good as his sources.
Read his post. (Salon requires either a subscription or an ad view to access this content.)
Update: Not that a lack of reasonable substantiation has stopped bloggers from running with the story as if it were simple fact.
But, hey, when you hate someone as much as people like Tom hate the Bush family, it’s easy to treat rumor and innuendo as fact.
Page 1 of 1 pages
© 2005 by the authors of ResurrectionSong. All rights reserved.
Powered by ExpressionEngine